Seed Media Group

The Island of Doubt

An irregular exploration of the struggle between the power of rational discourse and the scientific method on one hand, and the forces of superstition and dogma on the other.

Search this blog

Profile

me-fergus.jpg James Hrynyshyn is a freelance science journalist based in western North Carolina, where he tries to put degrees in marine biology and journalism to good use.

Recent Posts

   xml.gifrss.gif


Recent Comments

award1-blog.gif
for 9 July 2007

Archives

Other Doubtful Blogs

Inspiration

The Demon-Haunted World:
Science as a Candle
in the Dark, by Carl Sagan
(A review)

The Doubter's Companion:
by John Ralston Saul (Excerpts)

Skeptic Magazine: www.skeptic.com

Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal: www.csicop.org

A poem by Yehuda Amichai:
The Place
Where We Are Right


The Meaning of the
Island of Doubt


Author's site: cyamid.net


Add to Technorati Favorites! Penetrating so many secrets, we cease to believe in the unknowable. But there it sits nevertheless, calmly licking its chops.
--- H. L. Mencken

By doubting we come to inquiry; and through inquiry we perceive truth.
--- Peter Abelard

Undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance.
-- Richard Dawkins

As for evolution, it happened. Deal with it.
-- Michael Shermer.

More blogs about island of doubt.

« Edwards blogger episode as science story | Main | Texas and a techology fetish »

The end of an era at Princeton

Category: pseudo-science
Posted on: February 16, 2007 9:22 AM, by James Hrynyshyn

After 28 years, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research institute is finally giving up the ghost, bringing an end to arguably the most respectable -- or the least embarrassing -- parapsychological research effort. Is this cause for celebration? I'm not sure, but I think Princeton is probably happy to see it go.

Dr. Robert Jahn founded PEAR and ran it with private money as Princeton wasn't all that keen on the idea of spending its students and alumni's money on ESP, telekenesis and "the role of consciousness in the establishment of physical reality." According to the CBC,

Jahn, a former dean of engineering at Princeton, says it's time for him to move on to other projects. "For 28 years, we've done what we wanted to do, and there's no reason to stay and generate more of the same data," he told the New York Times. "If people don't believe us after all the results we've produced, they never will."
Which is just as it should be.

Jahn says he has convincing evidence supporting the notion that people can influence the outcome of physical experiments merely by concentrating. In other words, if you wish hard enough, you can make things happen. But the measure of the value of experimental data is not what the experimenter thinks. It's what other scientists think. Inveterate skeptic Bob Park of the University of Maryland calls Jahn's research institute "an embarrassment ... that squanders credibility."

Is that a fair description? Most of the literature produced by PEAR seems to have been published in the the Journal of Scientific Exploration, a publication Jahn helped found. Other founders include Thomas Gold (who has made remarkable and iconoclastic contributions to a variety of fields, although his theory that petroleum is not a fossil fuel represents quite a leap) and James Trefil (a prolific author of quite reputable books explaining science to non-scientists). So, while Jahn has failed to produce convincing or reproducible results, and has been unable to publish in the mainstream, he does keep some interesting and respectable company. This puts him significantly above the level of crackpots like Rupert Sheldrake, he of the nonsensical "sense of being stared at" theory of innate psychic powers.

Is there no place for scientific investigation of the paranormal? It's useful to note that the closure of PEAR follows closely on the heels of the decision of the former Committee for the Scientific Explanation of Claims of the Paranormal to change its name to The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Officially, this is so the group can better "deal with a wider range of questionable claims that have emerged in the contemporary world." But could there be something in the way of a more essential shift taking place?

Maybe we're seeing the beginning of an end of an era. Is the effort to use the natural world to try to explain the supernatural finally winding down?


TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments

Oh but come on, the kids loved them!

Posted by: Foxy | February 16, 2007 9:45 AM

So, what will Dr. Spengler do now?

Posted by: J-Dog | February 16, 2007 9:56 AM

For specific detailed accounts of some of the data-handling errors of PEAR, see the links in Mark Chu-Carroll's post.

Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | February 16, 2007 11:40 AM

So, what will Dr. Spengler do now?

Attend to his private collection of spores, molds, and fungus, presumably.

Posted by: Sean Foley | February 16, 2007 12:49 PM

It's a pity most established science is too dogmatic to recognize valuable research in a ground breaking field. The role of the mind in scientific research seems more than smoke and mirrors. It doesn't matter how many times you get that monkey-robot Randi or other priests from CSICOP on this witch hunt, the data won't go away.

I applaud Jahn for his excellent research in this field. Perhaps many years from now PEAR will be recognized as a credible scientific organization, that was willing to embrace exploration rather than dogma.

Go ahead Inquisition, preach away... The Work will continue.

Posted by: Simon Moon | February 19, 2007 9:58 AM

Also, the last time I checked -- Science doesn't explore the supernatural. PEAR was studying something present in Nature. Ohhhh, but that burns your straw-man fallacy, doesn't it. If you can call something that doesn't agree with your Belief System (B.S)supernatural, you don't have to worry about. The pain of being locked in one "reality tunnel." Ahhh the Agony! So much for neutral scientific inquiry!

Posted by: Simon Moon | February 19, 2007 10:09 AM

...the data won't go away.
Neither will the experimental shortcomings, or the data handling irregularities, or the instances of known fraud, or the complete lack of verifiably reproducible experiments.
Also, the last time I checked -- Science doesn't explore the supernatural... Ohhhh, but that burns your straw-man fallacy, doesn't it...
Speaking of straw-man fallacies, I hope you're enjoying your own. Science doesn't explore the supernatural? So all those experiments testing the healing power of prayer didn't happen? You know, all the ones by the Mayo Clinic, and Duke University, and even the Templeton Foundation; the ones that showed no positive effect? What about the two that did report positive effects, but turned out to be fraudulent, by Elisabeth Targ and by Columbia University? Burn, baby burn.

Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | February 20, 2007 9:34 AM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. Comments are moderated for spam, your comment may not appear immediately. Thanks for waiting.)





Having problems commenting?

Search All Blogs

Blogs in the Network

Top Five: Most Active

  1. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER! 07.08.2008 · PZ Myers
  2. Nobody gets to call me arrogant ever again 07.08.2008 · PZ Myers
  3. Thanks, Andrew Wakefield 07.08.2008 · Orac
  4. Arguments for God 07.07.2008 · Jason Rosenhouse
  5. "Diversity" at the Naval Academy 07.08.2008 · Ed Brayton

Top Science Stories

powered by SEED - seedmagazine.com